Johnny Depp trial verdict

[Velar Fricative]

Of course sales of his cologne have skyrocketed. Of course.

[pixy0stix]

"There were numerous photos taken and no evidence of abuse!" Not like there are loads and loads and loads of evidence that abuse victims are very very good at hiding their abusers handiwork, but keep on keeping on.

This case has been very triggering. I think he abused her, I think she retaliated, and here we are with a very public case where everyone is an expert. I hate it.

I caught someone's ticktock of the insanity of Depp leaving the trial, and women/men were throwing themselves at his vehicle and stuffing presents into it. It was fucking bizarre.

[bears]

If you haven't read the Rolling Stone profile on Depp from 2018, it's a fascinating article and gives a good overview of why his career is where it is today: www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-trouble-with-johnny-depp-666010/

[laladypoet]

I'm not a doctor but I believe vaccines don't work, let's talk about that

[ECB]

Jun 3, 2022 9:16:12 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I caught someone's ticktock of the insanity of Depp leaving the trial, and women/men were throwing themselves at his vehicle and stuffing presents into it. It was fucking bizarre.

This fascination with celebrities is mind-boggling, but it's also - I believe - VERY much why we are where we are politically.  Trump won because he was FAMOUS, a celebrity, more so than anything else.  If he hadn't been on The Apprentice, I don't think he would have had the fan/voter base that he has.  Thanks Mark Burnett. 

[jeaniebueller]

I didn't see this posted yet but if you have any questions about the timeline and abuse, Michael Hobbes of the Maintenance Phase podcast wrote a great piece on it:

www.readthepresentage.com/p/johnny-depp-amber-heard?s=r

[jeaniebueller]

Jun 1, 2022 18:28:59 GMT -5 devonpow said:

I have a lot of FEELINGS about this case. I started watching it closely after hearing
Amber Heard had been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (my mom has that so I’m intimately familiar). I watched a majority of the trial.

- I think it’s clear there was abuse by both parties. Verbal and physical. She very clearly was an instigator a lot - that doesn’t/shouldn’t matter. He has more power in the relationship due to fame, money, and physicality so that needs to be taken into consideration even when there is “mutual abuse”

- she also clearly lied about some things and was caught in those lies on the stand. She also clearly exaggerated. It really sucks because she didn’t need to. Abuse is abuse, and the fact that she made up more grandiose tales of the abuse either because she felt she had to, or due to her BPD and histrionic personality disorder (assuming those diagnoses are correct) is awful. The law was on her side coming into this - defamation against a public figure is very hard to prove. But her testimony was terrible and really hurt her. When the jury sees you clearly lying on some things they might discount everything, and that’s what they did. If she had stayed with the smaller story/basics she would have won - she had evidence of abuse, just not the abuse she was claiming (if that makes sense)

- they both have some really rotten personality traits. The whole trial was painful. I think the jury did the right thing according to the law but it sucks. The hatred towards her has been gross. I don’t like her and think she lied about a lot but that shouldn’t diminish the real abuse that happened between them. 

- his lawyers were WAY better. Money makes a difference in our justice system

Its so weird how you typed up an entire criticism of Amber Heard's demeanor and testimony and not one word about Johnny Depp's horrendous behavior before, during and after the trial. Everyone who talks about 'mutual abuse,' and picking apart her body language, and says things like 'i'm not saying amber is great or anything,' is always conspicuously silent about Depp's behavior. Really jogs the noggin. 

ETA: my comments are a little aggressive and I apologize, but its very frustrating to see these deep dives on amber's behavior from the 'both sides' crowd when they never counter with an equal deep dive on Depp. AND I feel like people seem to not understand that every victim is imperfect, because they are people like the rest of us. And this is the exact reason its very difficult to convict anyone of domestic violence unless there are numerous third party witnesses. Women are disproportionately put under the microscope for how they behave after they are victimized, its just 'well what were you wearing,' all over again. Men are forgiven for not being perfect.

[jeaniebueller]

Jun 2, 2022 11:28:11 GMT -5 foundmylazybum said:

Jun 1, 2022 21:19:51 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

He’s weaponized the court system and now his buddies like Marilyn Manson are going to do the same thing to their victims. Really scary time for DV victims. Fuck that guy, the judge and the jury and every single person who thinks that ‘Amber turd’ is the height of comedy and is using this moment as a way to gain followers.

I'm not necessarily rooting for one person here or another..but I think this is a little emotional.

Both parties take a big risk by accepting jury of their peers and both have a risk of losing. Johnny Depp already lost one case so, as others pointed out, defamation and even interpersonal relationship violence is hard to prove..and you are right, it is sad.


You think the judge and jury (people we never saw?) Used this case as comedy and to gain followers? You really believe the judge wasn't taking her job seriously or doesn't have professional integrity?

Honestly, of all the stuff that was silly, those weren't take aways I got.

I work with DV survivors and so would appreciate you not telling me I'm being 'emotional.' 

You really believe the judge wasn't taking her job seriously or doesn't have professional integrity?

Yes. The fact that she allowed cameras in the courtroom proves this exactly. There was no valid reasons for cameras. None. 


One of the jurors received a text from his wife during the trial that said 'amber is psychotic,' and was somehow not released from service.


 The court reporter also acted very inappropriately

[tacokick]

Jun 3, 2022 10:33:20 GMT -5 ECB said:

Jun 3, 2022 9:16:12 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I caught someone's ticktock of the insanity of Depp leaving the trial, and women/men were throwing themselves at his vehicle and stuffing presents into it. It was fucking bizarre.

This fascination with celebrities is mind-boggling, but it's also - I believe - VERY much why we are where we are politically.  Trump won because he was FAMOUS, a celebrity, more so than anything else.  If he hadn't been on The Apprentice, I don't think he would have had the fan/voter base that he has.  Thanks Mark Burnett. 

I think it’s more about the machine of publicity and group think. I think Trump won because he was so popular in the evangelical community. Lots of QAnon crossover there. The Depp trial really reached QAnon levels of ferver and cherry-picking of “truth” in a strange way. I don’t think that celebrity hurt but there is something going on where massive amounts of Americans are looking for something to really throw themselves into. And now there are mechanisms in place that push messages out to people to run with. Add in that people with what would formerly be fringe ideas can reach massive amount of people you’re in a big mess.


ETA Did you know the average adult reading comprehension level in the US has gone down? 54% are now at below a 6th grade level.

[jeaniebueller]

Jun 3, 2022 11:30:55 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Jun 3, 2022 10:33:20 GMT -5 ECB said:

This fascination with celebrities is mind-boggling, but it's also - I believe - VERY much why we are where we are politically.  Trump won because he was FAMOUS, a celebrity, more so than anything else.  If he hadn't been on The Apprentice, I don't think he would have had the fan/voter base that he has.  Thanks Mark Burnett. 

I think it’s more about the machine of publicity and group think. I think Trump won because he was so popular in the evangelical community. Lots of QAnon crossover there. The Depp trial really reached QAnon levels of ferver and cherry-picking of “truth” in a strange way. I don’t think that celebrity hurt but there is something going on where massive amounts of Americans are looking for something to really throw themselves into. And now there are mechanisms in place that push messages out to people to run with.

Sorry to be responding to so much, i'm just getting caught up.

The right has been looking for any reason to discredit me too for years and they are weaponizing this as well.

Even if you don't believe Amber, please understand that this case will affect policy, it will be used as right wing talking points to discredit other victims, it will be used by people who are currently being accused of heinous acts of DV and SA. This is the moment certain lawmakers have been waiting for. The ramifications of this case may even affect people you know in real life. People who were plastered to their TVs watching this will take things they saw in that trial and apply it if they are in jury duty or deciding whether to believe people that they know in real life. The general public does not understand the dynamics of domestic violence at all and there was so much misinformation floating around in discussions about how 'real' DV victims behave.

[foundmylazybum]

Jun 3, 2022 11:09:12 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Jun 2, 2022 11:28:11 GMT -5 foundmylazybum said:

I'm not necessarily rooting for one person here or another..but I think this is a little emotional.

Both parties take a big risk by accepting jury of their peers and both have a risk of losing. Johnny Depp already lost one case so, as others pointed out, defamation and even interpersonal relationship violence is hard to prove..and you are right, it is sad.


You think the judge and jury (people we never saw?) Used this case as comedy and to gain followers? You really believe the judge wasn't taking her job seriously or doesn't have professional integrity?

Honestly, of all the stuff that was silly, those weren't take aways I got.

I work with DV survivors and so would appreciate you not telling me I'm being 'emotional.' 

You really believe the judge wasn't taking her job seriously or doesn't have professional integrity?

Yes. The fact that she allowed cameras in the courtroom proves this exactly. There was no valid reasons for cameras. None. 


One of the jurors received a text from his wife during the trial that said 'amber is psychotic,' and was somehow not released from service.


 The court reporter also acted very inappropriately

1) I don't know you personally, so how am I or anyone else here on an anonymous message board supposed to know what you do? And ask yourself objectively if you are responding from an emotional space, because its something you care about. It's an observation, not judgment. When you care about something, you get emotional, just own that. 🤷‍♀️

2) as others have pointed our, its fine for people here to disagree on points.

I disagree that Johnny Depp "weaponized" the judicial system by exercising his right to trial. Objectively, I ALSO agree that this can have other impacts that are nagative for dv issues. Both can be true.



And I disagree with statements like "fuck the judge and fuck the jury," because they were doing their jobs. I agree with other posters that it seemed like the jury in particular followed the "charges" very closely and thats why the ruling was what it was. Im actually not trying to change your or anyone else's mind, and i personally dont need lectures or links on dv.


I'm only stating MY perspective in the same way you stated yours.

[jeaniebueller]

>I disagree that Johnny Depp "weaponized" the judicial system by exercising his right to trial.

His use of the court system is part of the cycle of abuse and he knew exactly what he was doing when he filed this lawsuit. He promised 'total global humiliation.' He hired a PR team that did election misinformation campaigns and used social media and bots armies and influencers to spam trial coverage all over social media and TV. The cameras in the courtroom thing was a strategy and she lost the minute the judge made that ruling. To top it off, his career was on a backslide for years before AH wrote that editorial. Her editorial had nothing to do with erratic behavior on set and inconsistency. He is best buds with Marilyn Manson, who is now using the same tactic against Evan Rachel Wood. Suing her was not a noble cause for him. I'll just leave it there.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 3, 2022 13:52:00 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

>I disagree that Johnny Depp "weaponized" the judicial system by exercising his right to trial.

His use of the court system is part of the cycle of abuse and he knew exactly what he was doing when he filed this lawsuit. He promised 'total global humiliation.' He hired a PR team that did election misinformation campaigns and used social media and bots armies and influencers to spam trial coverage all over social media and TV. The cameras in the courtroom thing was a strategy and she lost the minute the judge made that ruling. To top it off, his career was on a backslide for years before AH wrote that editorial. Her editorial had nothing to do with erratic behavior on set and inconsistency. He is best buds with Marilyn Manson, who is now using the same tactic against Evan Rachel Wood. Suing her was not a noble cause for him. I'll just leave it there.

Not to mention, he very clearly forum shopped for a court in a state with the most favorable laws for him even though neither he nor Heard live in that state or really have any connection to it.

[suzyp]

Jun 3, 2022 14:15:07 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jun 3, 2022 13:52:00 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

>I disagree that Johnny Depp "weaponized" the judicial system by exercising his right to trial.

His use of the court system is part of the cycle of abuse and he knew exactly what he was doing when he filed this lawsuit. He promised 'total global humiliation.' He hired a PR team that did election misinformation campaigns and used social media and bots armies and influencers to spam trial coverage all over social media and TV. The cameras in the courtroom thing was a strategy and she lost the minute the judge made that ruling. To top it off, his career was on a backslide for years before AH wrote that editorial. Her editorial had nothing to do with erratic behavior on set and inconsistency. He is best buds with Marilyn Manson, who is now using the same tactic against Evan Rachel Wood. Suing her was not a noble cause for him. I'll just leave it there.

Not to mention, he very clearly forum shopped for a court in a state with the most favorable laws for him even though neither he nor Heard live in that state or really have any connection to it.

Exactly. He was "lucky" that he was able to find jurisdiction in VA because the Washington Post's printing presses are located there.  VA has terrible anti-SLAPP laws and his case would have been thrown out in CA so he had to find a way to file somewhere else and got lucky that the Post didn't wasn't in MD instead.  This is how Devin Nunes is able to sue Devin Nunes' Cow twitter handle - he sues in VA because of the law there.

[8675309]

FFS Are we supposed to turn the other way when a woman or even a man lies and creates a story about someone to maliciously ruin their career?
Are we supposed to believe ALL women just because it's part of a bigger story? Where is the justice in that? Is that what we do now?

IMO, I believe this case took women in DV cases back decades and it's not because he sued her for defamation. It's because she LIED about being a victim. She lied about a number of things and did it in the name of DV. Please tell me when we have to stop listening to both sides "just because". I feel for so many women out there who have to now show proof. That's the burden that Amber set into motion. Not Johnny.

If you watched the trial at all you would have seen what the Jury saw. A narcissist acting like a victim up on the stand. I do not believe ALL women. Sorry, I don't.

And I am NOT even a Johnny Depp fan. Could care less about the guy. But if my brother/uncle/dad were in that situation you are damn right I would tell them to fight.

[notreal]

Jun 3, 2022 15:14:18 GMT -5 8675309 said:

FFS Are we supposed to turn the other way when a woman or even a man lies and creates a story about someone to maliciously ruin their career?
Are we supposed to believe ALL women just because it's part of a bigger story? Where is the justice in that? Is that what we do now?

IMO, I believe this case took women in DV cases back decades and it's not because he sued her for defamation. It's because she LIED about being a victim. She lied about a number of things and did it in the name of DV. Please tell me when we have to stop listening to both sides "just because". I feel for so many women out there who have to now show proof. That's the burden that Amber set into motion. Not Johnny.

If you watched the trial at all you would have seen what the Jury saw. A narcissist acting like a victim up on the stand. I do not believe ALL women. Sorry, I don't.

And I am NOT even a Johnny Depp fan. Could care less about the guy. But if my brother/uncle/dad were in that situation you are damn right I would tell them to fight.

But this case DIDN'T prove there was no DV, that was already decided in a court in 2016.  This case decided whether by telling other people about the abuse THAT A COURT ALREADY DECIDED HAPPENED that AH purposely tried to do JD harm.

[AJL]

Jun 3, 2022 15:34:37 GMT -5 notreal said:

Jun 3, 2022 15:14:18 GMT -5 8675309 said:

FFS Are we supposed to turn the other way when a woman or even a man lies and creates a story about someone to maliciously ruin their career?
Are we supposed to believe ALL women just because it's part of a bigger story? Where is the justice in that? Is that what we do now?

IMO, I believe this case took women in DV cases back decades and it's not because he sued her for defamation. It's because she LIED about being a victim. She lied about a number of things and did it in the name of DV. Please tell me when we have to stop listening to both sides "just because". I feel for so many women out there who have to now show proof. That's the burden that Amber set into motion. Not Johnny.

If you watched the trial at all you would have seen what the Jury saw. A narcissist acting like a victim up on the stand. I do not believe ALL women. Sorry, I don't.

And I am NOT even a Johnny Depp fan. Could care less about the guy. But if my brother/uncle/dad were in that situation you are damn right I would tell them to fight.

But this case DIDN'T prove there was no DV, that was already decided in a court in 2016.  This case decided whether by telling other people about the abuse THAT A COURT ALREADY DECIDED HAPPENED that AH purposely tried to do JD harm.

Maybe I'm missing something but was it the UK case against the Sun that determined Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard?

[8675309]

Jun 3, 2022 15:34:37 GMT -5 notreal said:

Jun 3, 2022 15:14:18 GMT -5 8675309 said:

FFS Are we supposed to turn the other way when a woman or even a man lies and creates a story about someone to maliciously ruin their career?
Are we supposed to believe ALL women just because it's part of a bigger story? Where is the justice in that? Is that what we do now?

IMO, I believe this case took women in DV cases back decades and it's not because he sued her for defamation. It's because she LIED about being a victim. She lied about a number of things and did it in the name of DV. Please tell me when we have to stop listening to both sides "just because". I feel for so many women out there who have to now show proof. That's the burden that Amber set into motion. Not Johnny.

If you watched the trial at all you would have seen what the Jury saw. A narcissist acting like a victim up on the stand. I do not believe ALL women. Sorry, I don't.

And I am NOT even a Johnny Depp fan. Could care less about the guy. But if my brother/uncle/dad were in that situation you are damn right I would tell them to fight.

But this case DIDN'T prove there was no DV, that was already decided in a court in 2016.  This case decided whether by telling other people about the abuse THAT A COURT ALREADY DECIDED HAPPENED that AH purposely tried to do JD harm.

That case was decided by a judge (not a jury) in UK with evidence that was falsified. (Bruise Kits, Recordings etc.) were shown in THIS case to prove that she was lying. 

[hermione]

The problem with your sentiment is that “listening to both sides” traditionally means blaming the woman for whatever abuse she has endured - if she’s believed at all.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 3, 2022 15:39:38 GMT -5 8675309 said:

Jun 3, 2022 15:34:37 GMT -5 notreal said:

But this case DIDN'T prove there was no DV, that was already decided in a court in 2016.  This case decided whether by telling other people about the abuse THAT A COURT ALREADY DECIDED HAPPENED that AH purposely tried to do JD harm.

That case was decided by a judge (not a jury) in UK with evidence that was falsified. (Bruise Kits, Recordings etc.) were shown in THIS case to prove that she was lying. 

Hold up. The evidence was not proved false. The defense argued that it was false, but it was not proved so. I just looked it up.

[claudiajean]

Jun 3, 2022 16:19:33 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jun 3, 2022 15:39:38 GMT -5 8675309 said:

That case was decided by a judge (not a jury) in UK with evidence that was falsified. (Bruise Kits, Recordings etc.) were shown in THIS case to prove that she was lying. 

Hold up. The evidence was not proved false. The defense argued that it was false, but it was not proved so. I just looked it up.

Someone on tiktok who said they were a lawyer said it was proved false though.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 3, 2022 17:07:09 GMT -5 claudiajean said:

Jun 3, 2022 16:19:33 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Hold up. The evidence was not proved false. The defense argued that it was false, but it was not proved so. I just looked it up.

Someone on tiktok who said they were a lawyer said it was proved false though.

Oh, well then, I stand corrected. /sarcasm (not directed at you)

[8675309]

I think it's very dangerous to say that ONE case about the SUN article in the UK proves anything. That case was not JUST about DV.

My point is that I straight up don't believe her. I know a narcissist/gaslighter when I see one. The jury did too. This woman is vile you guys but hey KOKO....

ETA: I also think it's gross to assume that anyone that doesn't take your position MUST get their info from TikTok. 

[devonpow]

I think the only evidence from the UK trial that was shown to be blatantly false/ she clearly perjured herself was over her donating the divorce settlement. My understanding is that since that case was already appealed and closed they won’t go back/do anything about that at this point. And probably don’t care to the effort to go after a perjury charge to be honest. The two cases really can’t be compared very well since they has really big differences - different evidence was allowed/not allowed in both cases, it’s an entirely different legal system, there was no jury, the suit was against a newspaper and not a person, and there was a different legal standard of evidence/proof being met.

Not saying right or wrong for the different cases,, but I know it seems confusing how there were two different outcomes

[pixy0stix]

Jun 3, 2022 18:09:09 GMT -5 8675309 said:

I think it's very dangerous to say that ONE case about the SUN article in the UK proves anything. That case was not JUST about DV.

My point is that I straight up don't believe her. I know a narcissist/gaslighter when I see one. The jury did too. This woman is vile you guys but hey KOKO....

ETA: I also think it's gross to assume that anyone that doesn't take your position MUST get their info from TikTok. 

Ok, I'll bite, where did you get your information? This thread is real light on news articles.

[devonpow]

Jun 3, 2022 18:32:20 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jun 3, 2022 18:09:09 GMT -5 8675309 said:

I think it's very dangerous to say that ONE case about the SUN article in the UK proves anything. That case was not JUST about DV.

My point is that I straight up don't believe her. I know a narcissist/gaslighter when I see one. The jury did too. This woman is vile you guys but hey KOKO....

ETA: I also think it's gross to assume that anyone that doesn't take your position MUST get their info from TikTok. 

Ok, I'll bite, where did you get your information? This thread is real light on news articles.

I’ll say where I got my info (not an expert on this trial but I paid a lot of attention as j mentioned earlier). I watched maybe 80%? I watch via Emily D. Baker who is a YouTube legal analyst. She used to be a district attorney in Los Angeles and now covers celebrity trials/giving the legal context. I found her when I was looking for something on the Britney Spears conservatorship thing to prove a point to a friend lol

In general she’s fun/good to listen to about celebrity trials. She focuses on the “legal” things so explains all the objections, standards of evidence, jury rules and what have you. But she’s funny and swears a lot lol

[jeaniebueller]

Jun 3, 2022 18:01:00 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jun 3, 2022 17:07:09 GMT -5 claudiajean said:

Someone on tiktok who said they were a lawyer said it was proved false though.

Oh, well then, I stand corrected. /sarcasm (not directed at you)

This thread is a real mask off moment for some, isn’t it?

[BlondeSpiders]

Jun 1, 2022 21:19:51 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

He’s weaponized the court system and now his buddies like Marilyn Manson are going to do the same thing to their victims. Really scary time for DV victims. Fuck that guy, the judge and the jury and every single person who thinks that ‘Amber turd’ is the height of comedy and is using this moment as a way to gain followers.

I belong to several crafting and Etsy groups on Facebook, and the number of pro-JD designs that people are selling make me sick to my stomach.

[jeaniebueller]

Oh a YouTube star who’s been grifting her way to fame using celebrity lawsuits for a stepping stone? Yes please listen to her instead of an actual practicing lawyer like myself who works with victims of domestic violence. I’m glad she’s making Amber heard’s humiliation and harassment entertaining and funny for people /s

[claudiajean]

Jun 3, 2022 18:29:13 GMT -5 devonpow said:

I think the only evidence from the UK trial that was shown to be blatantly false/ she clearly perjured herself was over her donating the divorce settlement. My understanding is that since that case was already appealed and closed they won’t go back/do anything about that at this point. And probably don’t care to the effort to go after a perjury charge to be honest. The two cases really can’t be compared very well since they has really big differences - different evidence was allowed/not allowed in both cases, it’s an entirely different legal system, there was no jury, the suit was against a newspaper and not a person, and there was a different legal standard of evidence/proof being met.

Not saying right or wrong for the different cases,, but I know it seems confusing how there were two different outcomes

According to the ACLU where she said she had donated it, even saying she didn’t is a reach. Like it’s murky. She hasn’t donated it but she had been in touch with them to set up a schedule for giving it- it is their preferred way for bigger donations. So if she had said she pledged it as opposed to gave it, it would have been more accurate. Then when Depp sued her, she contacted them and said she had to hold off until after the case because of the legal fees she was facing.

I think she’s far from perfect so I’m not trying to say she’s blameless, but I do think this particular part has been overblown.